John McCain's Vice Presidential Pick 2008-03-14 16:00:11

The New Yorker Picks McCain's #2, Joins Facebook=Big Week!

The debate can end now, The New Yorker has picked John McCain's running mate. Nope, not Florida Governor Charlie Crist, or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty — it's. . . wait for it. . . Condoleezza Rice. Stunned? Here's some of the reasoning behind the pick.

Her nomination to a constitutional executive office would cost McCain the votes of his party’s hardened racists and incorrigible misogynists. They are surely fewer in number, though, than the people who would like to participate in breaking the glass ceiling of race or gender but, given the choice, would rather do so in a more timid way, and/or without abandoning their party. And with Rice on the ticket the Republicans could attack Clinton or Obama with far less restraint.

It's not completely without merit, though for some reason I can't see it happening, but the piece is worth a read for sure. One other tidbit that stood out? George W. Bush might be remembered for his progressive cabinet nominations. Surprised? Then, read more.

In this connection, a kind word for George W. Bush may be in order. By appointing first Colin Powell and then Rice to the most senior job in the Cabinet, a job of global scope, Bush changed the way millions of white Americans think about black public officials. This may turn out to the most positive legacy of his benighted Presidency.

Oh, and if you like these ideas, you're in luck! The New Yorker now has a Facebook page. Head on over and give 'em a poke.

Hiya folks! Long time no see. Out of the Bush administration the most likable character seems to me to be Condi Rice, possesing a diplomatic senserity lacking elsewhere. What bothers me is that the 9-11 comitee stated in their closing report that many indicators on a possible terrorist attack on US soi from both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, all landed on Rice's desk, yet little was done to actively prevent or prepare for this scenario.I think Republicans in general are a little defensive at best, or fundamentalistic at worst, when it comes to the invasion of Iraq. And I don't mean to pigeon hole anyone, bit there is a tendency of locking horns on the subject, from both camps. First of all, the long term goals the Bush administration set going in have all failed to be reached even 5 years into the process. One main reason was to create a domino effect in the Middle East to create positive democracies and to further stabilize the region. Unfortunately for everyone it created the opposite effect, and the situation today is, in the region, far worse then it was 5 years back. When one brings up Saddam Hussein as the reason of our invasion it worries me, because the oppression of the Iraqi people had a less than a minor role in why we went to war, and if it is really what people believe then we are in big trouble concerning future foreign policy, as you need to understand the conflict to resolve it.

Hiya folks! Long time no see.
Out of the Bush administration the most likable character seems to me to be Condi Rice, possesing a diplomatic senserity lacking elsewhere. What bothers me is that the 9-11 comitee stated in their closing report that many indicators on a possible terrorist attack on US soi from both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, all landed on Rice's desk, yet little was done to actively prevent or prepare for this scenario.
I think Republicans in general are a little defensive at best, or fundamentalistic at worst, when it comes to the invasion of Iraq. And I don't mean to pigeon hole anyone, bit there is a tendency of locking horns on the subject, from both camps. First of all, the long term goals the Bush administration set going in have all failed to be reached even 5 years into the process. One main reason was to create a domino effect in the Middle East to create positive democracies and to further stabilize the region. Unfortunately for everyone it created the opposite effect, and the situation today is, in the region, far worse then it was 5 years back.
When one brings up Saddam Hussein as the reason of our invasion it worries me, because the oppression of the Iraqi people had a less than a minor role in why we went to war, and if it is really what people believe then we are in big trouble concerning future foreign policy, as you need to understand the conflict to resolve it.

Steph: So it's better to let people suffer under the regime of a dictator? Now that I think about it, I would rather live under Saddam's tyranny than in a country in which WALMART exists. Thanks for helping me on that one!

As for progressive cabinet nominations, that's a huge stretch. When Bush came to office, Colin Powell had an international reputation and was greatly admired in the U.S. Appointing him made Bush look good but I doubt Powell's reputation will ever recover.

To have no soul is to lack compassion or empathy for your fellow beings: to be willing to strive for and use power to destroy other human beings, perhaps by attacking their country and destroying its infrastructure so that you can have it rebuilt in a manner more favorable to rich and insatiable corporate entities with which you have aligned yourself. To be willing to overlook the suffering of others because the cause of that suffering benefits the rich and insatiable corporate entities with which you have aligned yourself. To be willing to undermine the basic rights and liberties of others because to do so benefits the rich and insatiable corporate entities with which you have aligned yourself.
"Barf" is a reference to the fact that even thinking of such a person without a soul makes you sick to your stomach. Kind of like Condi.

First, I'd love to see Condi, but I don't believe it will happen. I don't believe Condi will go anywhere near the White House for at least four years as I believe she will be distancing herself from the Bush Administration.
Additionally, I don't believe we'll see Powell anywhere near the VP spot in this election either.
Great concepts, but highly unlikely.
Kaeni:
"who "hates [sic] gooks"" - If you're going to use this to make him seem racist, please at least explain the context: He has applied this term to his captors of Vietnam, not all Vietnamese. He is not racist against Asian, or particularly the Vietnamese, but he does hold anger angst those who individuals who tortured him.
"and referred to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist " - Please link this. I tried searching for this but was having an issue finding where McCain has said such, though I found a note that Richard Quinn, a previous advisor of McCain back in 2000 had written some sort of article calling Mandella a terrorist, but this is not McCain.
"will never allow that woman to share the "White" House with him." - Considering everything you presented was out of context, I find this statement to be completely false based upon your facts.